Chamberlin v. Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC

Background

Christopher Bayre Chamberlin moved for permission to submit a supplemental expert report from a new expert. The proposed report would address the reasonableness of the defendants’ fees in light of the circumstances, including alleged malpractice. The motion concerned Chamberlin’s defense to the defendants’ counterclaims seeking fees.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows a court to modify a scheduling order only for “good cause.” The court explained that the main question is whether the party seeking the change acted diligently. If that party was not diligent, the court generally need not consider the other issues.

Chamberlin relied on observations made at a February 12, 2024 hearing and argued that he had not understood until October 2023 that he might be unable to present his malpractice theory to the jury as a defense. The court rejected that explanation as insufficient to show diligence. It noted that a non-retained expert had been disclosed to testify about the reasonableness of the defendants’ services on May 7, 2021; expert discovery closed on July 30, 2021; and Chamberlin had disputed the reasonableness of the fees in his March 26, 2020 answer to the counterclaims.

The court also said Chamberlin overstated the harm from denying the motion. In a written order, the court had explained that although Chamberlin could not seek attorneys’ fees based on his malpractice claim, he could argue under contract law that the defendants’ performance was unreasonable because the fees exceeded the value of the services received. The court had not yet decided whether the jury would be told about its earlier malpractice ruling, and it had not excluded particular evidence concerning whether the fees exceeded the value of the services. Those evidentiary issues could be addressed at the pretrial conference or trial.

The court further observed that although expert testimony is generally required on the professional standard of care in a malpractice claim, it was unclear whether that requirement applied to the contractual defense allowed to proceed. Some facts may be within a layperson’s knowledge, including facts showing that the value of the services was less than the fees charged. The court gave as possible examples a failure to provide a promised pre-bill and spending substantial time and money on an appeal focused on recovering small amounts rather than achieving the parties’ understood goal of obtaining a reset of the case. The court did not rule at that time on which evidence would ultimately be admitted.

Disposition

Judge Joseph C. Spero denied Chamberlin’s motion for leave to file the supplemental expert report. The stated basis was Chamberlin’s failure to establish the diligence required to modify the scheduling order. The court also clarified that the denial did not necessarily prevent Chamberlin from presenting admissible evidence supporting the contractual argument that the fees exceeded the value of the services.